Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/us....ski/index.html
So tell me... do you support the administration, who said that Abu Ghraib was just an isolated incident by 'bad apples', or do you support the view that the soldiers were doing what they were ordered to do?
Neither. Both.
Quite honestly, all this new revelation has done is simply confirm what I was reasonably sure about all along.
The "tone at the top" said that anything goes.
That sense of what was appropriate got communicated down through the organization (military), and the relatively untrained guards and interrogators who got handed the responsibility of running Abu Gharaib did what they thought was appropriate.
They were "bad apples" in the sense that few or none really questioned what they were doing, and some were outright enthusiastic about it. But the blame can't be entirely dumped on them, because the general tone of what was going on encouraged, or at the very least, condoned it.
Agree with you there. Do you throw a bone to the military because of the "Milgram" effect, or do you think they should be better for that because they are trained on what are lawful/unlawful orders are?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Personally, I think the military should not just perform LOAC training, but come up with much better Geneva Conventions training as well.
I think *someone* should have really spoken up and stopped it, but personally, it is hard to know how much of the Milgram effect there was.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
The general tone in the military helped contribute to the sense that what they were doing was "lawful".
I think that training on the Geneva Convention should be emphasized.
The thing is that we are now expecting combat soldiers to act as police. They aren't. If we expect them to do those kinds of functions, give them the training they need.
If you ever get a chance, read up on the "Pentagon's New Map".
The guy basically says that the military must change its Cold War thinking and organization to acquire the "nation-building" skills that it needs, and I agree.
This is not surprising.
Well Dick stated that they did these things to protect America from future terrorist attacks... oh wait Iraq had nothing to do 9/11 or any attacks on the USA prior to our invasion...Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Dick and Bush ordered people captured in Iraq tortured?
Before you all jump to conclusions and believe an article that may be in error, read about the The Bybee Memo. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this, but I don't see anything that indicates it was for military usage. It was clearly an opinion for the CIA!
since when does a General take orders from Jay Bybee? An ASSistant legal council?
Anyone read the full text of the memo? I only see opinion. Haven't searched much, but shouldn't we be reading the memo ourselves instead of believing others people's opinions like sheeple, or kool-aid drinking lemmings?
Blame the Coach.
You seriously don't think that memo could apply to the military as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You don't know what legal counsel is, do you?Quote:
since when does a General take orders from Jay Bybee? An ASSistant legal council?
A legal opinion?Quote:
Anyone read the full text of the memo? I only see opinion.
I certainly don't think anyone should take your word for it.Quote:
Haven't searched mush, but shouldn't we be reading the memo ourselves instead of believing others people's opinions like sheeple, or kool-aid drinking lemmings?
It was for the CIA and they get different guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The Bybee Memo, 8/1/02
Do generals answer to the President? That is much the the same. The OLC is the president's own legal shop, and its opinions have executive authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Besides, interrogation was collaborative as b/w intel and the military.
The FBI forbid its agents from participating in Gitmo interrogations in [2002 Ed.]. Have you considered why, WC?
Where is the different legal opinion for the military?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If you seriously think this opinion can't be applied to the military, give your reasons why not.
Seriously, page 2 of the memo states that one section of the memo deals with torture as it relates to the president's powers as commander-in-chief.
Explain to us all how that can't be applied to the military.
Jack Goldsmith was horrified at the incompetence and the utter lack of any legal basis for the OLC's torture memos. Bybee and Yoo ignored precedents and invented novel theories of power to craft policy for a pre-existing program of interrogation. That's very unlawyerly. They also ignored the military's objections to the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
The policies they crafted brought dishonor to our country and morally corrupted our warriors. Bybee and Yoo deserve the flames and deserve to be disbarred and impeached, at a minimum.
Were they not the ones who came up with the unitary executive theory? I recall Rep. Paul being dismissed as a crank because he actually thought the Congress should at least have a vote on declaring war before, well, engaging in war. As, you know, that old archaic Constitution requires.
And, of course, the current and former occupant of 1600 Penn Ave have felt that the Constitution is a thing of the past. Sadly, they are correct.
I don't know that they came up with it, but their opinions made it the law, if only briefly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
The difference in training of those holding the detainees. I don't recall which one, but there is an Army Field Manual that covers such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Ever serve in the military?
Who was your commander-in-chief?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
President Reagan, then president Bush (41).Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you see why the Bybee memo can apply to the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No. At least not at any level. For such a thing to apply, it would only be done by qualified personnel. Not the group that was doing it. It doesn't matter how that General>Colonel tries to weasel out of it. Unqualified people were doing the actions, and worse yet, documenting them for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I can't tell whether you are purposely making a straw man to beat up or you truly have no idea what is being discussed here.
Where in the memos are the criminal acts perpetrated at Abu Ghraib authorized or sanctioned?
The memo came to the conclusion that most of those acts aren't crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Yes, and it simply does not wash to have low level enlisted playing such games with prisoners. Anyone knowing or participating should be jailed. Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners. It shouldn't be done for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Again, that has nothing to do with the legal opinion you linked. Focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I don't believe fun was mentioned in the memo. You can't stop someone from enjoying carrying out orders if that's the way that person feels.Quote:
Anyone knowing or participating should be jailed. Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners. It shouldn't be done for fun.
The memo was the reason the General->Colonel was saying she was right in her actions and improperly demoted. I started making the point the General does not follow an assistance memo. He was not in her chain of command. She is using it as an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You focus.
Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and circumstances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of shit.
no wonder my antennas never worked.
Wow, you have completely missed the point of the memo and still have no idea what the chain of command is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It doesn't matter whom you order to carry out these policies. Your whole argument was that the military couldn't be ordered to do anything as a result of this memo. That was proven wrong on page 2 of the memo itself.Quote:
Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and circumstances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of shit.
You were wrong.
There is no need to try to muddy the waters further since you were wrong from the outset.
Please stop making arguments for me that I am not making. I never said it couldn't be ordered or applied. I said the orders are not given by the attorney generals office. The memo was for use by the CIA but wasn't exclusive. It does not make it automatic military policy. It just gives a legal opinion. Not directive. In fact, a few posts back:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Yes, the interrogation techniques used were likely legal ones, when done under the right supervision and circumstances. Not by kids getting their rocks off! The regular soldiers are required to follow procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual. Not a stupid memo. I could see an authority authorizing harsher techniques done by soldiers, but again, it will be done by those qualified to do so. Not sadistic pieces of shit.
Quote:
Only qualified personnel should be causing any type of distress to prisoners.
Are you purposely being a stupid twit?Quote:
No. At least not at any level.Quote:
So you see why the Bybee memo can apply to the military.
Page 2:
Now did you go on to read section 5:
No shit it's a legal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's a legal opinion about what the president can get away with ordering anyone under his command to do. Therefore it is applicable to the military.
I know you can't help it.Quote:
Are you purposely being a stupid twit?
Yep, it's all about what the president can do as commander-in-chief.Quote:
Now did you go on to read section 5:
That includes the military.
Thanks for going through the trouble of hosting the image to confirm my point. I appreciate it. :tu
I grew up an army brat and I've served and I've never had any any doubt that this was NOT something that just a few bad apples decided to do. It just doesn't work that way and it is standard practice to throw a few lower ranking people under the bus when the military is embarrased.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Now whether or not it went all the way to the white house I never really knew but now that the tactics used at Abu Ghraib are the same as those described in the memos I think the answer is pretty clear.
None of that means I support further prosecutions, just answering the question you asked.
...the slippery slope...
First the Neocons declared, "we do not torture".
Next, they said their methods were not torture but "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Then, they said we did what we had to do and we're not apologizing for it.
NOW, they're saying...yeah, we tortured, but it worked....